Well they didn't even promote Hugh Jackman's existence in the movie and his role was merely a cameo, so I don't know why it should help XFC's numbers at the box-office. That is also the same case with Patrick Stewart appearing in Origins.

I've never bought into the idea that Cyclops was not depicted properly on film just because he wasn't considered the lead for three films. Even in THE LAST STAND, he is fantastically portrayed in a limited role. Yes, he died in X3 when he should have had Logan's role at the end, but we all know there were political reasons for this, and I don't think that what was there wasn't fantastic anyway.

I think the reason FIRST CLASS didn't make as much money as previous X-films is twofold: One, Wolverine/Hugh Jackman wasn't a main player, and he's been a draw. Two, when FIRST CLASS was released it had been five years between X-Men films, with THE LAST STAND being released in 2006. This is compared to three years or so between films for X-MEN, X2 and THE LAST STAND. It has an impact on the public consciousness, and I'm sure FIRST CLASS looked a lot less familiar to audiences who had bought into the previous franchise, and at a time when there were more superhero movies in general being released, it probably seemed a little bit less "special" and unique to general audiences in context. A similar thing happened with THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. It made money, but it didn't make "sequel" money.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

I've never bought into the idea that Cyclops was not depicted properly on film just because he wasn't considered the lead for three films.

I don't think anyone here wanted Cyke to be the lead for three films, at least not in this discussion. To assume that would be to miss the point of people's problems with how Fox has set up their X-Men franchise.

There's a reason why the Avengers approach has and will continue to be brought up in comparison to X-Men it was the first time a superhero ensemble film treated most of their characters with a level of respect and focus. They could've easily made Iron Man the Wolverine of that film, but they didn't. And even though Iron Man got a lot of screentime and memorable lines, Joss Whedon smartly set up Hulk as a crowd pleasing character as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guard

Even in THE LAST STAND, he is fantastically portrayed in a limited role. Yes, he died in X3 when he should have had Logan's role at the end, but we all know there were political reasons for this, and I don't think that what was there wasn't fantastic anyway.

Anything that was satisfying about Scott in X3 is down to James Marsden. Even though he was clearly cast because he's supporting cast actor and nothing more, Marsden did play the part admirably. But that still dosen't change the fact that they crapped on Cyclops in X3. Not only did Logan take his role as JEan's lover, they had Storm take his role as Xavier's successor. And then, his death is pretty much undermined for the rest of the film.

If Marvel Studios handled the X-Films, Cyclops wouldn't be THE lead character...but then again, none of them would be, because if Marvel Studios had the X-Men, it would actually be an ENSEMBLE movie.

For me personally, I don't need for Scott to dominate all three movies, just respect his role in the X-Men mythology. He is the Field Leader of the X-Men, a tactical genius, and the successor to Charles Xavier who wields ungodly power and tries his best to contain it. Respect that, develop that as much as you can in an ensemble film. You can do profound and impressive things with a character in minutes or a single scene. Don't undermine Scott's role and basically portray him as nothing more than Logan's foil, or the guy that Jean dates because he provides security, but dosen't actually seem to love. Now, you may say all those aspects are in the original trilogy, but if they are, then they're developed poorly.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafizbat

Welcome to the Batman v Superman forums, where people will take a perfectly reasonable comment you make and twist it into something completely different to make themselves feel better.

I don't think anyone here wanted Cyke to be the lead for three films, at least not in this discussion. To assume that would be to miss the point of people's problems with how Fox has set up their X-Men franchise.

There's a reason why the Avengers approach has and will continue to be brought up in comparison to X-Men it was the first time a superhero ensemble film treated most of their characters with a level of respect and focus. They could've easily made Iron Man the Wolverine of that film, but they didn't. And even though Iron Man got a lot of screentime and memorable lines, Joss Whedon smartly set up Hulk as a crowd pleasing character as well

I don’t think THE AVENGERS “balanced” things quite as well as people think in comparison to the X-Men movies. AVENGERS just showed more action in general. Marvel absolutely used Iron Man as their “Wolverine”, in several respects. I think THE AVENGERS was far less subtle about how they portrayed their iconic characters, so it seems like they’re putting more of their characters in the film, but in reality, there’s not that much depth to what’s onscreen, or that much development of the characters compared to what’s found in X-Men. It’s actually fairly comparable to what we see in X-MEN, with the exception of a few nods to the characters solo film adventures in THE AVENGERS.

Quote:

Anything that was satisfying about Scott in X3 is down to James Marsden. Even though he was clearly cast because he's supporting cast actor and nothing more, Marsden did play the part admirably.

Frankly, I think Cyclops limited screentime in X3 is satisfying because of Marsden, the writing of the character, the effects team, and pretty much anyone involved.

Marsden was originally cast because Jim Caveziel and several other good up and coming actors essentially passed on the role. They were looking for people who could nail their parts and grow into them, who were good actors, not just “supporting cast actors”.

Heck, Hugh Jackman was a relative nobody when he was cast as Wolverine, not a “film leading man”.

Quote:

But that still dosen't change the fact that they crapped on Cyclops in X3.

And nothing ever will.

But the fact that they crapped on Cyclops in X3 doesn’t mean they crapped on him in two or three other films. There seems to be this attitude that because he was crapped on in X3 that he magically retroactively got crapped on in every movie. That’s just not true.

Quote:

Not only did Logan take his role as Jean's lover, they had Storm take his role as Xavier's successor. And then, his death is pretty much undermined for the rest of the film.

In the comics, when Cyclops has quit, is dead or is missing, guess what has happened?

Logan and Jean have occasionally had a romance/intrigue between them.

And Storm takes more responsibility as a leader. This has been repeated through various versions of the X-Men mythology for decades.

Of the remaining X-Men in THE LAST STAND, if Scott was unable to do so, then Storm was the most logical choice to take on Xavier’s role, along with Logan, based on what the franchise had showed in two previous films. They didn’t just “give them Cyclops’ role”, they showed the logical progression of those characters based on the source material.

Quote:

If Marvel Studios handled the X-Films, Cyclops wouldn't be THE lead character...but then again, none of them would be, because if Marvel Studios had the X-Men, it would actually be an ENSEMBLE movie.

The X-Men films ARE ensemble movies. Wolverine has a slightly larger role than the others, but that’s partially because he’s been the audience identification character from Day One. The same can be said of Rogue.

Quote:

For me personally, I don't need for Scott to dominate all three movies, just respect his role in the X-Men mythology.

And for the most part, they did. They did not in X3, though his role was acknowledged. It was an enormous weakness of that film/adaption. It does not invalidate the entire portrayal of Cyclops up to that point.

Quote:

He is the Field Leader of the X-Men, a tactical genius, and the successor to Charles Xavier who wields ungodly power and tries his best to contain it.

And that’s pretty much what he had been up until X3.

Quote:

Respect that, develop that as much as you can in an ensemble film. You can do profound and impressive things with a character in minutes or a single scene.

And they did. Until X3, and even during his limited time in X3.

Quote:

Don't undermine Scott's role and basically portray him as nothing more than Logan's foil, or the guy that Jean dates because he provides security, but dosen't actually seem to love. Now, you may say all those aspects are in the original trilogy, but if they are, then they're developed poorly.

The only reason people insist on seeing Scott as just Logan’s foil is because people insist on only seeing him that way.

That’s not the reality of whats onscreen.

I never saw Scott as “just Logan’s foil”. Any more than I saw Xavier as “just Logan’s mentor” or Storm as “Just the girl who kicks Logan in the pants now and then”. The nature of Scott’s character was very clear on film.

Where on Earth do you get the idea that Jean doesn’t actually love Scott?

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

I don’t think THE AVENGERS “balanced” things quite as well as people think in comparison to the X-Men movies. AVENGERS just showed more action in general. Marvel absolutely used Iron Man as their “Wolverine”, in several respects. I think THE AVENGERS was far less subtle about how they portrayed their iconic characters, so it seems like they’re putting more of their characters in the film, but in reality, there’s not that much depth to what’s onscreen, or that much development of the characters compared to what’s found in X-Men. It’s actually fairly comparable to what we see in X-MEN, with the exception of a few nods to the characters solo film adventures in THE AVENGERS.

Frankly, I think Cyclops limited screentime in X3 is satisfying because of Marsden, the writing of the character, the effects team, and pretty much anyone involved.

Marsden was originally cast because Jim Caveziel and several other good up and coming actors essentially passed on the role. They were looking for people who could nail their parts and grow into them, who were good actors, not just “supporting cast actors”.

Heck, Hugh Jackman was a relative nobody when he was cast as Wolverine, not a “film leading man”.

And nothing ever will.

But the fact that they crapped on Cyclops in X3 doesn’t mean they crapped on him in two or three other films. There seems to be this attitude that because he was crapped on in X3 that he magically retroactively got crapped on in every movie. That’s just not true.

In the comics, when Cyclops has quit, is dead or is missing, guess what has happened?

Logan and Jean have occasionally had a romance/intrigue between them.

And Storm takes more responsibility as a leader. This has been repeated through various versions of the X-Men mythology for decades.

Of the remaining X-Men in THE LAST STAND, if Scott was unable to do so, then Storm was the most logical choice to take on Xavier’s role, along with Logan, based on what the franchise had showed in two previous films. They didn’t just “give them Cyclops’ role”, they showed the logical progression of those characters based on the source material.

The X-Men films ARE ensemble movies. Wolverine has a slightly larger role than the others, but that’s partially because he’s been the audience identification character from Day One. The same can be said of Rogue.

And for the most part, they did. They did not in X3, though his role was acknowledged. It was an enormous weakness of that film/adaption. It does not invalidate the entire portrayal of Cyclops up to that point.

And that’s pretty much what he had been up until X3.

And they did. Until X3, and even during his limited time in X3.

The only reason people insist on seeing Scott as just Logan’s foil is because people insist on only seeing him that way.

That’s not the reality of whats onscreen.

I never saw Scott as “just Logan’s foil”. Any more than I saw Xavier as “just Logan’s mentor” or Storm as “Just the girl who kicks Logan in the pants now and then”. The nature of Scott’s character was very clear on film.

Where on Earth do you get the idea that Jean doesn’t actually love Scott?

Yes I agree.Avengers Is very much Tony Stark,who Is wolverine of MS,and captain America.I really wish the avengers would have been like 616 where they decide to come together as a team.I never liked the they come together because of COulson's death(which Is being rewritten In SHield show) I like avengers as a team not as Shield squad.

I think most everyone was given a wrong deal In last Stand

James Marsden In X-Men and X2 Is very much the classic Cyclops to me.
People tend to forget the writers themselves of comics have short changed Cyclops.Having him leave X-Men.Even being dead for awhile.even In many stories he's not the one with largest role.

In X2 It's clear Jean's choice is Cyclops.Now the the crap Rothman and Ratner did can make It seem like Wolverine was her love but that Wasn't Bryan Singer.

The first 2 X-Men films are clearly ensemble pieces.wolverine and Rogue are audece's introduction to world In first film.X2 Is about expanding the world.
Nightcrawler gets big introudction.Jean get smore focus.You have wolverine's contunued search for past.You saw the antimutant forces with Stryker.You have subplot of rogue and Iceman.Plus subplot of pyro's journey from student to joining Magneto.

even In last Stand Cyclops being broken up about Jean Is consent with Cyclops from comics.Storm becoming leader but wolverine getting a lot of attention Isn't unusual eather.

I think what pissed most people off (me included) is that it should have been Scott at the end of X3 getting through to Jean. Having Wolverine be the one was extremely annoying (on top of Cyke's off screen death as well).

They could have played the Alcatraz stuff out mostly the same, but it's Scott who orders everyone else to clear off and he approaches her as she goes ape on everything. She attempts to confetti him as well but fails, and when he is up close she realises why: She simply cannot end him because Jeans love for him is stronger than her Phoenix personality. Jean then takes over long enough to end herself, holding Scott at bay while she does so.

Anyways, X3's numerous failings are old news and best not dwelt on.

__________________To see some gratuitous Wobbly Bits just hit the link :)

The X-Men films ARE ensemble movies. Wolverine has a slightly larger role than the others, but that’s partially because he’s been the audience identification character from Day One. The same can be said of Rogue.

I agree - in comparison to most films, the X-men films are ensemble films. What people don't take into consideration is that a true ensemble film without a strong protagonist is rare and difficult to execute. Film is dominated by single protagonist stories and audience relate to these the most. When X-men came out, there was no model for ensemble films that could be safely emulated so the studio was probably very reticent to go in that direction.

I even think X3 is probably the most "ensemble" film of the original trilogy.

Phoenix can return.... you know a Phoenix rises from the ashes.... and lets be honest Scott was never seen dead.... everyone of the x-men thought he was dead... I would love for their return... but I think it will be small... leave a bigger role for X4

I see no reason to have the Phoenix be involved here. Or Jean for that matter unless they start with a complete ALT reality non X1,2 and 3 related. Otherwise Keep Jean and Scott dead till the time problems are resolved. No need to resurrect characters just to kill them on screen again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

Thats the another thing, some fans here want Storm to be killed at the beginning and some of them are also suggesting that Jean and Cyclops should return for this movie. Okay a death scene and resurrections all happening in dystopian future, its just way too much.

Agreed. If its post X3, there is zero reason to do any of that with Jean and Scott.

yeah, it had MANY characters, but the screentime was less ensemble than X2.

Wolverine was an even bigger character than Rogue, Cyclops, Angel, Colossus, etc etc. So not the right example.

yes, but it's the first film without a Wolverine exclusive storyline. Is only real involvement is through the Phoenix storyline - he doesn't have a personal stake in the Cure storyline. As much as people want to write her off in X3, Jean has her own storyline and Storm, while she doesn't do much, gets more screentime.

Wolverine is the lead character in all of the original films, but I still feel X3 is the most ensemble.

Iceman, Kitty, Storm, Beast and Jean all had decent screen time in X3 when compared to the other films. With the exceptions of a few scenes, the story sucked so no one cared. Pretty sure they fought more as a team in X3 then any other film. The execution was jut horrible as a whole.

X2 is by far and away the best example of ensemble film-making of the entire trilogy.

People do seem to look back on the OT with a "Too much Wolverine" mindset, and they're totally entitled to because there is a lot of him but I rewatched X2 the other day and it really is a real crafted film. Honestly, I think just about everyone has a purpose and opportunity to shine. They're not there to make up numbers, they all play a strong role, they pretty much all have an arc.

The only one shortchanged, IMO, is Cyclops. I think he should at least have had a better fight scene at the start, or a better one against Jean. I've never read the script but often wondered if there was a better role in there that got cut down.

Oh and Lady Deathstrike wasn't treated well too, but considering she wasn't originally Lady Deathstrike in early drafts, I'm not surprised she felt tacked on.

I think X3 is a terrible example of an ensemble film. *Some* people may have had more screentime but if that isn't used wisely, it doesn't really matter. Kitty had no story. The 'love triangle' died on it's arse. Rogue was pretty much thrown under the bus. Iceman was cardboard. Colossus was less than cardboard and may as well have had no lines at all. Famke got the most screentime she ever had, but had no material whatsoever to really fun with. Terrible storytelling. Halle's Storm didn't come to life at all.

X3 just did an alright job at making the X-Men look like a team. But as far as the whole movie? X2 was the king at pretty much everything, including ensemble cast. Everyone had their own personal story. These characters are all different from the start of the film than the end: Pyro, Nightcrawler, Stryker, Logan, Iceman, Magneto, Mystique, Jean..even Xavier. He seemed so heart broken at what humans could do...smaller parts for Storm, Cyclops and Rogue but they all had their moments. Cyclops the least...but X3 KILLED him so...

Variety reports that Peter Dinklage has recently been cast as the villain for "Days of Future Past," and that has everyone wondering who he'll play. Honestly unless he plays the voice of Master Mold, I have no idea who he could play for this storyline.

Bryan Singer also sat down with reporters to talk about his newest movie "Jack the Giant Slayer" and the conversation inevitably turned to "X-Men: Days of Future Past."

One quote that stood out was that the movie "takes place in completely different times than the ‘X-Men’ movies have taken place. There’ll be new technology, new things we haven’t seen before in ‘X-Men’ films. Certain characters and certain story and certain drama that hasn’t be done yet, so it’s not so much sequel. It’s more of its own kinda thing."

He also specifically says he wants to 'right some wrongs' done in the movies. Which, I assume, means "X-Men: The Last Stand." Might we see Cyclops and Jean Grey return?

Hugh Jackman recently told the Daily Mail that "every other actor who’s ever put on a superhero uniform will be in it," he said. "There’s an element of time travel and, naturally, it will be action-packed."

Oh yay!! I feel a little more hopeful about Jean returning and Scott too. Thanks for that, Summers.

btw...I'm really digging my avvie.

__________________"Oh you know how it is...working under cover for Hydra - acting all uptight and evil..." - Bobbi Morse
"I'm sorry...did I step on your moment?" - Black Widow"Soldiers trust each other. That's what make it an army. Not a bunch of guys running around shooting guns." - Steve Rogers

He also specifically says he wants to 'right some wrongs' done in the movies. Which, I assume, means "X-Men: The Last Stand." Might we see Cyclops and Jean Grey return?

Hugh Jackman recently told the Daily Mail that "every other actor who’s ever put on a superhero uniform will be in it," he said. "There’s an element of time travel and, naturally, it will be action-packed."

Suppose it depends if brian see's the death of cyclops and jean as wrong or something important to fix

id be even more excited for this film if brian did find a way to add cyclops

I don’t think THE AVENGERS “balanced” things quite as well as people think in comparison to the X-Men movies. AVENGERS just showed more action in general. Marvel absolutely used Iron Man as their “Wolverine”, in several respects. I think THE AVENGERS was far less subtle about how they portrayed their iconic characters, so it seems like they’re putting more of their characters in the film, but in reality, there’s not that much depth to what’s onscreen, or that much development of the characters compared to what’s found in X-Men. It’s actually fairly comparable to what we see in X-MEN, with the exception of a few nods to the characters solo film adventures in THE AVENGERS.

Frankly, I think Cyclops limited screentime in X3 is satisfying because of Marsden, the writing of the character, the effects team, and pretty much anyone involved.

Marsden was originally cast because Jim Caveziel and several other good up and coming actors essentially passed on the role. They were looking for people who could nail their parts and grow into them, who were good actors, not just “supporting cast actors”.

Heck, Hugh Jackman was a relative nobody when he was cast as Wolverine, not a “film leading man”.

And nothing ever will.

But the fact that they crapped on Cyclops in X3 doesn’t mean they crapped on him in two or three other films. There seems to be this attitude that because he was crapped on in X3 that he magically retroactively got crapped on in every movie. That’s just not true.

In the comics, when Cyclops has quit, is dead or is missing, guess what has happened?

Logan and Jean have occasionally had a romance/intrigue between them.

And Storm takes more responsibility as a leader. This has been repeated through various versions of the X-Men mythology for decades.

Of the remaining X-Men in THE LAST STAND, if Scott was unable to do so, then Storm was the most logical choice to take on Xavier’s role, along with Logan, based on what the franchise had showed in two previous films. They didn’t just “give them Cyclops’ role”, they showed the logical progression of those characters based on the source material.

The X-Men films ARE ensemble movies. Wolverine has a slightly larger role than the others, but that’s partially because he’s been the audience identification character from Day One. The same can be said of Rogue.

And for the most part, they did. They did not in X3, though his role was acknowledged. It was an enormous weakness of that film/adaption. It does not invalidate the entire portrayal of Cyclops up to that point.

And that’s pretty much what he had been up until X3.

And they did. Until X3, and even during his limited time in X3.

The only reason people insist on seeing Scott as just Logan’s foil is because people insist on only seeing him that way.

That’s not the reality of whats onscreen.

I never saw Scott as “just Logan’s foil”. Any more than I saw Xavier as “just Logan’s mentor” or Storm as “Just the girl who kicks Logan in the pants now and then”. The nature of Scott’s character was very clear on film.

Where on Earth do you get the idea that Jean doesn't actually love Scott?

I love this post completely and utterly. Although I'd argue that The Avengers although it didn't develop it's characters as much, it did give each and very character plenty of room to shine and gave each a moment where audiences learned something that they didn't know before about the characters that is more than can be said for the X-movies.

You're right about Scott though, all he had was little screentime but apart from that he had the most accurate portrayal. Cyclops didn't become as interesting until very recently before then he was just the field leader that had an on and off rivalry with Logan and was in love with Jean. The films portrayed that perfectly they just didn't flesh the character out enough.

__________________X-MENAlone, You Are Mighty
Together, You Are LEGENDS!- PROFESSOR CHARLES XAVIER

You're right about Scott though, all he had was little screentime but apart from that he had the most accurate portrayal. Cyclops didn't become as interesting until very recently before then he was just the field leader that had an on and off rivalry with Logan and was in love with Jean. The films portrayed that perfectly they just didn't flesh the character out enough.

there was some decent cyclops stuff in X1, infact one most noticeable scene is cyclops at Xaviers bedside telling him how he if anything happens he will take care of everyone

its just before jean uses cerebro and scott runs up to her as the door closes